President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) early announcement of the referendum questions is certainly a strategic move. Most importantly, he wants to put the US at ease. The two referendum questions have not deviated from US policy, so the US will have no reason to oppose them. Thus, the diplomatic pressure that Taiwan has faced over holding a referendum is relieved.
Although the two referendum questions are neither new nor impressive, the point is that the people of Taiwan can finally vote in a referendum, which is a vital demonstration of the nation's sovereignty. That is why China, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) oppose it.
The KMT and PFP always complain that their motives are being misunderstood, but why do they always side with communist China on the issue of the nation's status and sovereignty?
Take the Referendum Law (公民投票法) for example -- Beijing publicly denounced it as a move to claim independence. The KMT and PFP also criticized it as a violation of the Constitution and tried to resist it in counties ruled by them. We can say that Beijing is an overt villain and the pan-blues are hypocrites. And they work together to prevent Taiwan from holding a referendum.
We can do nothing about opposition from Beijing, nor do we need to. But we can rebuke the pan-blues for their belief that holding a referendum violates the Constitution.
First, the Referendum Law was passed by the legislature after three readings. Commonly referred to as a "defensive" or "peace" referendum," Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum on national security issues, so the referendum can be defensive or offensive in nature. Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) employ the term "peace referendum" to make the mechanism more powerful and flexible in its use.
Second, Article 17 entitles the president to initiate a referendum "whenever the country is faced by an external threat that could interfere with national sover-eignty." So as long as there is a "possibility" of such a threat, the president is entitled to hold a referendum. According to the law, the president has to make the decision on whether a referendum should be held, but this decision has to be approved by the Executive Yuan. So the final decision does not rest on the president's subjective judgment alone -- a check mechanism is still in place. Although, practically speaking, the Executive Yuan's approval is only a procedure, it is not fair to say that law endows the president with dictatorial powers.
According to Article 17, there is no violation of the Constitution in Chen's initiation of a referendum. The KMT and PFP oppose the referendum simply to please China. That's why they make up the excuse about violation of the Constitution. But all they are doing is showing the public who they really are.
Chin Heng-wei is editor in chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS